If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

1. Being good, but perhaps not great, is just fine for an ownership group that typically loses money on the team and thus needs some good community vibes and two roundsí worth of playoff gate revenue.

Hmmmm.....

I guess this just hasn't been up that long or since it's the dog days of summer not many people are paying attention to the board right now but I just find it interesting that had one of us made this very statement that there would have been people on here clamoring for their heads.

I just wonder where are the posters who get all bent out of shape when one us locals wonder aloud if being good is just good enough and that there may not be that over riding drive for excellence?

I mean that is what the guy is saying, right? He is just flat out saying that the Pacers are content to make the playoffs and hope for advancement but don't really feel compelled to be a championship team. Or am I reading that wrong?

Nobody made a huge deal about it because that's how the majority of the people feel about the team, by just reading PD I can tell that many posters are just happy to be competitive and be the "under dogs" every year.

The Pacers to me have done a great job in creating this illusion that been "under dogs" is great, they also use the "small market" excuse pretty well and now with the new CBA they are going to have an even bigger excuse to be "under dogs" for a long time(because they get money at the end of the year not matter what) why lose money to win a championship when you can make money by been "under dogs"? smart business if you ask me.

But even you have to admit that this takes it out of the context of being "local conspiracy" people. I mean you now have a national writer forwarding the thought so doesn't that mean those of us who have thought that over the years aren't as crazy as some of you "not you, but the collective you" might have thought.

It doesn't help that he brought back the one person who I always accused of that behavior (until the very end, I think he really tried to be a title contender at the end of his first run).

It also isn't a thought you have to dig deep into mountains of research to come up with. A team that has had pretty much the worst attendance in the league over the last 5 years and finally pulled itself into contention is ALWAYS going to face a very tough decision when it comes to taking a huge risk the very next year and going back into the basement of attendance instead of building on it. It's not like somehow the Pacers are the only team ever faced with it or who ever will be faced with it. It also it isn't like it's a no-brainer that you shoot for the moon and expect fans to stick with you if it blows up in your face and you go 20-62 after dumping fan favorite players for guys with (unrealized) upside.

But we're back to the basic argument. Risking the future of the franchise on a championship or (quite literally) bust is to some folks the only way to run a team and to other folks an unacceptable risk at the best of times. Trying to build on success before going for the championship is a better economic decision for some and a cop-out for others. I don't know how you change anyone's mind when the 1999-2000 Finals team isn't considered a good enough example of how building toward a championship could work. Again, for some around here, "try" doesn't exist - either you succeeded or you sat on your rear making no deals, raking in money and laughing all the way to the bank with your useless second-round team.

I won't argue against anyone saying they played it safe this year. I WILL argue against people saying it shows that ownership simply isn't interested in a championship, they just want to make safe money - mainly because I defy anyone to FIND safe money around here that doesn't have a Colts horseshoe already on it.

BillS

"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

Nobody made a huge deal about it because that's how the majority of the people feel about the team, by just reading PD I can tell that many posters are just happy to be competitive and be the "under dogs" every year.

The Pacers to me have done a great job in creating this illusion that been "under dogs" is great, they also use the "small market" excuse pretty well and now with the new CBA they are going to have an even bigger excuse to be "under dogs" for a long time(because they get money at the end of the year not matter what) why lose money to win a championship when you can make money by been "under dogs"? smart business if you ask me.

Your going to take a lot of guff for this statement from some but if we are being honest I think there might be some truth to that last paragraph of yours.

Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

Nobody made a huge deal about it because that's how the majority of the people feel about the team, by just reading PD I can tell that many posters are just happy to be competitive and be the "under dogs" every year.

The Pacers to me have done a great job in creating this illusion that been "under dogs" is great, they also use the "small market" excuse pretty well and now with the new CBA they are going to have an even bigger excuse to be "under dogs" for a long time(because they get money at the end of the year not matter what) why lose money to win a championship when you can make money by been "under dogs"? smart business if you ask me.

And this is where I start to get . It is not like the only way to win a championship is to go for a home run signing of one or two stars. Heck, it's not even like teams with one or two stars are guaranteed to get a championship (Cavs? Knicks? Thunder for crying out loud?)

The response seems to always be, "well, you didn't risk messing up the whole season so you are clearly satisfied with being competitive and being the 'under dog'. Wouldn't it be better to spend 5 years winning 10 games a year and finally win the lottery and get the superstar so the Las Vegas Pacers will be champions? After all, that's the ONLY WAY to win!"

What I'm satisfied with is BUILDING a guaranteed high contending team (and you are joking if you say you have a way of building a guaranteed CHAMPIONSHIP team), especially now when we are coming out of the doldrums. To remain a team in Indianapolis we have to guarantee fans that good things will happen rather than hitting them with another year where their expectations are completely hosed up and no one knows whether to attend games or not until after the All-Star break - again.

If you are accusing Simon of being Donald Sterling and only in it to make profits, I'm thinking you are sadly mistaken.

BillS

"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

=BillS;1493693]And this is where I start to get . It is not like the only way to win a championship is to go for a home run signing of one or two stars. Heck, it's not even like teams with one or two stars are guaranteed to get a championship (Cavs? Knicks? Thunder for crying out loud?)

You need stars to win a championship that has always been the case, even Detroit had a bunch of stars(all five starters were at least one time all stars)

The response seems to always be, "well, you didn't risk messing up the whole season so you are clearly satisfied with being competitive and being the 'under dog'. Wouldn't it be better to spend 5 years winning 10 games a year and finally win the lottery and get the superstar so the Las Vegas Pacers will be champions? After all, that's the ONLY WAY to win!"

Way better than winning 30 games for 5 years, they were not even "under dogs".

What I'm satisfied with is BUILDING a guaranteed high contending team (and you are joking if you say you have a way of building a guaranteed CHAMPIONSHIP team), especially now when we are coming out of the doldrums. To remain a team in Indianapolis we have to guarantee fans that good things will happen rather than hitting them with another year where their expectations are completely hosed up and no one knows whether to attend games or not until after the All-Star break - again.

And you are making my point about how many fans feel, you are satisfied with "building a high contending team"

If you are accusing Simon of being Donald Sterling and only in it to make profits, I'm thinking you are sadly mistaken.

With the new CBA he might become the "new Donald sterling" why wouldn't he do that? he is making money by staying in the middle, why push it and lose money? so far he hasn't prove otherwise.

When I hear that the team is okay with being competitive and not really going for a championship, I guess I don't fully understand that way of thinking. Take the Magic for example, they turned down countless trade proposals for D12 before ultimately trading him for basically a bunch of mid round draft picks, and 3rd tier talent. They are OBVIOUSLY bottoming out in hopes of getting a couple of early lotto picks and hopefully drafting a superstar. So in essence they chose to go the route of not trading for players that would help them remain competitive, in hopes that they strike the mother-load in the draft. That, to me, is the definition of not going for a championship and simply cashing the fan's checks.

Let's be clear here. I'm sure if any superstar came out and said "I want to be traded to Indiana", then the team would be doing what they could to acquire that player. (And no I don't mean an injury prone RFA like EG where the Hornets were going to match any offer, and we'd be in bad shape with our own FA's) Remember the whole presentation the Pacers gave to Nene last year during FA? Though he's not a superstar by any meansl, the Pacers thought he was a REALISTIC and major upgrade; and they aggressively pursued him. I'd think if If we had a realistic shot at signing a Deron Williams or a player of that caliber, we would be pushing to make that happen in the very same way.

As long as that's the case, I don't see why one would think we are 100% content with being "competitive" while not being interested in going for a championship. There's a difference between trying to be patient and build with the resources you have, and not making a move to improve because you're content with 44-50 wins a year and that's it.

It also isn't a thought you have to dig deep into mountains of research to come up with. A team that has had pretty much the worst attendance in the league over the last 5 years and finally pulled itself into contention is ALWAYS going to face a very tough decision when it comes to taking a huge risk the very next year and going back into the basement of attendance instead of building on it. It's not like somehow the Pacers are the only team ever faced with it or who ever will be faced with it. It also it isn't like it's a no-brainer that you shoot for the moon and expect fans to stick with you if it blows up in your face and you go 20-62 after dumping fan favorite players for guys with (unrealized) upside.

Of course they should have went 20-62 when they were one of the worst teams in the league instead of playing Troy, Dun, and DG 36+ mins a night to make runs at the end of lost seasons. You're right - they are pregnant now. They can't afford to make a bold move and take a step back. But according to many on here, once they became decent and had money they would have a chance to land and impact FA or use their cap space / expiring deals to acquire top level talent. Not surprisingly neither occurred. IMO, it's not hard to see - if the Pacers are to ever win an NBA championship they will have to have drafted their best players. They aren't going to acquire top level talent any other way. They failed to maximize their time at the bottom and we will have a good but not great team to watch until the salary structure forces them to start over. I can only hope that they are both bold enough and lucky enough to make the most of it next time around.

And you are correct that there is no gaurenteed way to build a championship team. It's a ridiculous argument and I assume you know it. I can however gaurentee you that the team they have built will not win a title.

And to ad to Bills comments about that if the Pacers have only won 10 games a year for five year they would be in Vegas and not here I also have to disagree with that, nobody and I mean nobody is ever going to convince me that the clown of JOB kept the Pacers in Indiana because he was winning 30games a year instead of 10, that's crazy talk.

If we're talking about teams who are forgoing 40-50 wins per year in order to get a shot at a championship, Houston and Dallas have to be exhibits A and B. And interestingly they've both failed at it this year, but despite that seem to be sticking to the championship or bust strategy.

Houston just blew apart a .500 team to go all out on a trade bid for either Dwight Howard or Andrew Bynum. Now that they've failed, it looks like they're going to plan B, which is to field a team full of young players (their big FA acquisitions this year are 3rd year guys, come on), develop them, and get (another) high pick. And oh, repeat the process next year, when they'll have cap space again and presumably their prospects will have grown a year in value.

Dallas is a different case because they already have a star player in Dirk. However, they still blew up a championship team in order to preserve cap space to attract a second star to pair with Dirk. They failed with Deron this year, but that didn't deter Dallas - they just filled the roster with 1 year contract guys in order to have another go with cap space next year.

So that's 2 teams who aren't content to sit around and wait for a superstar to drop in their laps. Nor are they doing it with the famous (infamous?) OKC model of being terrible before being good (though arguably Houston is heading in that direction this year). Look, I understand why we're building the team the way we are. But it's pretty obvious that we're not being as proactive as other teams.

Are you sure about this? I'm thinking only Ben and Rasheed made the all-stars

Not all 5 Pistons made an All-Star team, although they came close. Prince was never an All-Star (although he was an Olympian). Hamilton made the All-Star game 3 times after the title year. Billups made 5 All-Star games, all after the title year. Ben Wallace made 4 All-Star games and was the only Piston to make it the title year (it was his 2nd at the time). Rasheed made it twice before the title and twice after.

So going into the title year, the Pistons had a combined 26 years of NBA experience with 3 All-Star games. The Pacers currently have 26 combined years of NBA experience with 4 All-Star games. The Pistons average age was 26.6 with their 2 oldest players both being 29. The Pacers will have an average age of 27 this year with their 2 oldest players being 32 and 29.

I'm not saying the Pacers will morph into the Pistons. They could, but it's unlikely. But the Pistons weren't thought of as a collection of stars at the time. It was only after they made the Finals 2 years in a row did they start getting the benefit of the doubt on things like All-Star games.

And you are making my point about how many fans feel, you are satisfied with "building a high contending team"

You miss my point. I don't think you CAN build anything BUT a high level contending team. There is no guaranteed way to build a championship team - all you can do is build a team that contends for a championship and then takes that step.

That's a long way from the implication that fans are fine with one-and-done in the playoffs as a definition for "contending".

With the new CBA he might become the "new Donald sterling" why wouldn't he do that? he is making money by staying in the middle, why push it and lose money? so far he hasn't prove otherwise.

Then why sign Roy to the max? Why sign Hill to a high contract? Why not just dump the high salaries for low-paid guys on their rookie contracts? The team is spending a lot more than it needs to in order to be a cash cow, according to most definitions. Get the young, exciting, cheap guys and let the fans come in droves, then get rid of them as soon as they hit their new contracts.

Simon is willing to spend money, just not the same way YOU would choose to spend the money.

BillS

"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

1. Being good, but perhaps not great, is just fine for an ownership group that typically loses money on the team and thus needs some good community vibes and two roundsí worth of playoff gate revenue.

Hmmmm.....

I guess this just hasn't been up that long or since it's the dog days of summer not many people are paying attention to the board right now but I just find it interesting that had one of us made this very statement that there would have been people on here clamoring for their heads.

I just wonder where are the posters who get all bent out of shape when one us locals wonder aloud if being good is just good enough and that there may not be that over riding drive for excellence?

I mean that is what the guy is saying, right? He is just flat out saying that the Pacers are content to make the playoffs and hope for advancement but don't really feel compelled to be a championship team. Or am I reading that wrong?

That is exactly what I said Peck and I got hammered by this board. This front office is fine with being good and is not willing to take the steps to be great. They make all the excuses they can for why they cannot attract big name free agents. Money attracts big name free agents. Big name players attract national attention, that attention gets you more exposure on ESPN, TNT, and all the major networks. The Thunder became the media darling because they have players people want to watch. When you have players people want to watch, you fill your stadium and sell more merchandise. The Pacers overpaid Hibbert but probably had to. The Hill contract is very bad. He is an average player at best and most likely a sixth man on most competing teams. I like the Green signing, he has the talent to be special and is worth the risk. Augustine is probably a rental. More than likely won't be happy as a backup in the long term. Mahini could have been gotten without giving up valuable assets that could be used to gain something. The team can improve, but alot of ifs have to work out for that to happen. In my opinion, if your franchise is not willing to compete for championships, they are in this for the wrong reasons

You miss my point. I don't think you CAN build anything BUT a high level contending team. There is no guaranteed way to build a championship team - all you can do is build a team that contends for a championship and then takes that step.

That's a long way from the implication that fans are fine with one-and-done in the playoffs as a definition.

Thanks again, Bill...

Nothing is guaranteed for Miami, the Lakers, OKC or anyone else... A team must simply be competitive to have a shot at a championship... A lot of things have to fall in to place for any team to win...

For those that wish we had just tanked the post-brawl years to get high draft picks for a shot at a superstar... Again nothing is guaranteed... Teams can sit in the lottery for over a decade waiting for that one special player... And with the threat of the Pacers leaving town we could not afford that...

VNLZ - You said no one can convince you that JOB saved us with 30-win seasons (even though I'm fairly certain no one can convince you of anything contrary to your opinions period) I think you aren't reading Bill correctly... The 30-win seasons and JOB did not save us... But the fact that we have quickly turned things around making us competitive has! I had the biggest smile on my face when I saw the sea of gold in the field house because fan support is SORELY needed for the Pacers to stay in Indy... Had we gone the lotto route we could have just as easily became the next Bobcats as we could have became the next Thunder... And a decade of bad draft pan outs WOULD have cost us our team...

That is exactly what I said Peck and I got hammered by this board. This front office is fine with being good and is not willing to take the steps to be great. They make all the excuses they can for why they cannot attract big name free agents. Money attracts big name free agents. Big name players attract national attention, that attention gets you more exposure on ESPN, TNT, and all the major networks. The Thunder became the media darling because they have players people want to watch. When you have players people want to watch, you fill your stadium and sell more merchandise. The Pacers overpaid Hibbert but probably had to. The Hill contract is very bad. He is an average player at best and most likely a sixth man on most competing teams. I like the Green signing, he has the talent to be special and is worth the risk. Augustine is probably a rental. More than likely won't be happy as a backup in the long term. Mahini could have been gotten without giving up valuable assets that could be used to gain something. The team can improve, but alot of ifs have to work out for that to happen. In my opinion, if your franchise is not willing to compete for championships, they are in this for the wrong reasons

So do you think if we threw the bank at Dwight, or Lebron, or Wade, or Durant, or any other top 20 player, that they would come here?